The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
none of anything I just told you we knew in 2000 none of it and so we've now really learned a lot about how this injury occurs we we understand the pathophysiology fairly well not completely well as animal model work that's been looked at with that and we more importantly we now clinically know how to evaluate this injury in a way where we can kind of figure out what's happening and then apply a more targeted treatment to its true to its treatment
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
none of anything I just told you we knew in 2000 none of it and so we've now really learned a lot about how this injury occurs we we understand the pathophysiology fairly well not completely well as animal model work that's been looked at with that and we more importantly we now clinically know how to evaluate this injury in a way where we can kind of figure out what's happening and then apply a more targeted treatment to its true to its treatment